has US news reported this????

[movie zombie]

US ''uses incendiary arms'' in Iraq : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

geez, as if news hasn''t been bad enough already........torture, abductions, no missing WMD, rising troop deaths, Geneva Convention declared obsolete, innocent civilian deaths, secret prisons around the world, etc....now this. what else is in news around the world that we americans are not seeing or hearing here?!

and when did the high road become the low road?

peace, movie zombie

 

[movie zombie]

i forwarded the same article on to an Australian friend who was involved in many covert CIA activities in his past military life:

"Hmm, Horrible stuff....Not new though, it was used in Korea and Vietnam. I''m somewhat surprised they''d use it in street fighting, utterly
irresponsible, and trying to say its for illumination is rubbish, that''s a different type of phosphorous shell all together. Even in ''Nam it was only used out in the boondocks, mostly against VC
tunnels, much the same applied with Napalm. Just what the heck they expect to achieve in an urban fight with Willie Pete is beyond me, likely to be as dangerous to their own troops as to any enemy....."

i''ve withheld his name to protect the guilty.

peace, movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

In answer to your question, no. I have not seen this reported in any US newspaper. I have to admit that I do not regularly read anything more liberal than "The New York Times", however. I know that to some Pricescopers, that is the equivalent of Communist Party literature, but in reality one doesn't find everything there right away. Many stories that break elsewhere eventually make it into, "The New York Times", but it is not often a trailblazer in international stories. (Unless Seymour Hersh submits a piece.)

There is a huge amount done by the US about which the US people never learn. Sometimes it is because the people do not read any newspaper. At other times it is because the things happening are not in any newspaper. After the fact, the truth leaks out.

As Dick Hughes how he came to have the point of view he did about US policy.

I suggest that we watch this story-about which I had never heard until now-and see what happens to it. Rather than believe everything reported by one source (the BBC), let's see if, after investigation by the rest of the press (which now has access to the allegation), it turns out to be true or false.

Deborah

 

[strmrdr]

will probably go the same way as those morons that claim the US is using nuclear weapons because the anti-tank shells use depleted uranium.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/10/2005 9:19:40 AM
Author: strmrdr
will probably go the same way as those morons that claim the US is using nuclear weapons because the anti-tank shells use depleted uranium.

Let''s wait and see.

Deb

 

[movie zombie]

heard on the radio today that in italy this last weekend there were demonstrations against the US for using ''chemical'' warfare as stated in the article.

peace, movie zombie

 

[rubydick]

It''s official now. The US military just admitted using chemical weapons in Iraq:

US used white phosphorus in Iraq

Of course, this should come as no surprise. Reports came out in the first months of the war that US troops were using napalm.

Officials confirm dropping firebombs on Iraqi troops

And then there''s that nasty little business about depleted uranium...

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/15/2005 11:38:33 PM
Author: Richard Hughes
Of course, this should come as no surprise. Reports came out in the first months of the war that US troops were using napalm.

No surprise. It's just part of how we bring democracy to people to help them. The funny part, if one can use such a term, is how the US justified its use. It used a Catch 22 argument: when other countries banned the use of white phosphorous as a chemical weapon, the US refused to sign the treaty. So now when the US is condemned for using a chemical weapon banned by other countries, it claims it was not illegal because we never agreed not to use it! Notice that we were not proud of using it, though. We denied ever having done such a thing at first. Now that we were proven to have used it, we say there was nothing wrong with it, it isn't illegal.

Imagine if the laws of a country didn't apply to individuals who had not signed on to obey them!

"Hey, Judge, I did nothing illegal. I never signed not to rape and murder 20 women".

Deb

 

[AGBF]

The White Phosphorous the US Did Not Use

 

[perry]

One of the resons things like this happens is because of stockpiles of older weapons.

Only half way through the Viet Nam war did the US finally use up the last of the WWII bomb stockpile.

In a war environment it is very easy to use up stockpiles of otherwise obsolete weapons "just to get rid of them." I suspect that this was the case here. I doubt that the US has produced any new white phosphorus bombs in years - and I cannot think that congress would authorize a new series of production (congress authorizes each production run of each weapon type).

While the US is very good about destroying weapons that it signs international agreements to eliminate; without such an agreement the stockpiles are kept unless the weapons could become unstable and unsafe (then the US Military is good about dismantleing or destroying them).

As much as people may not like the US answer (we never signed the agreement): It stands up in court and is entirely legal. Many International agreements are "Voluntary" agreements. The US did not sign it - theirfore cannot be held responsible to it. However, the US can be critisized by people and other nations for not signing it. Only a few internatinal agreements have terms that turn them into international law when a high percentage of countries sign them. I will also note - that such agreements rarely get enough countries to sign them such that they become international law.

Perry

 

[colormyworld]

Perry you support the bush admin. at every tuun. I just would like to know if you believe fighting in iraq is the most efficient use of our rescources in the "war on terror" ?

 

[perry]

Colormyworld:

I suport the legal interpretation of what happened here (with some speculation as to why it happened). Facts are facts - and problems cannot be changed without facing the facts. It has nothing to do with my like or dislike of any goverment person. The fact is - the US did nothing illegal here; and is not bound in any legal matter by a treaty they have not signed. I think if you look you will find that many countries in the world have not signed certain treaties (different treaties for different countries). This comes from the concept of sovern law of a nation. The world, with very few exceptions, cannot dictate what is legal for a country to do or not to do. In the vast majority of cases - only the country can committ themselves to compliance with things not before regulated.

As far as the war on terror. I have never, ever, for the slightest minute ever thought that the war in Iraq had anything to do with the war on general terrorist or the terriorest threat to the US.

I believed it was done because of the threat of Saddam Hussein to the stability in the region and his continued defiance of international requirements. For that reason, I supported the war up front - and justify that basic cause to this day.

Quite frankly, I still support what the US is trying to do while admitting that things were probably not executed as well as could be on the rebuilding of the country. On the other hand, most people do not really know how much has been accomplished in that reconstruction and the change in many people''s lives. Hindsight is always 20/20; but news coverage is not - and is almost always very one sided and limited.

My main concern now how do we transition to and implement an effective exit stratagy. Just pulling out would be a huge disaster for both the area and the US.

Their are more important things in this world than just protecting american lives for the sake of protecting american lives. I believe that Iraq can become a self sufficient democracy in the Mideast - which would have a huge positive affect on the region.

Please note: I have 5 years of military service under my belt, and I personally know poeple who died in Viet-Nam; and I personally know Viet Nam war protesters.

Bottom line. Freedom aint free. New has been, never will be. Those that die or get wounded in that fight are always fighting for someone eles''s freedome. Unfortunately, some people are always looking for the quick and easy solution.

Perry

 

[colormyworld]

Perry I am not a lawyer so as far as legal issues go I am rather naive. What I do know is that the United States holds it self up as an example to the world. What kind of standard are we setting? As far as your second point. We were not lead into this war with Iraq for nation bulilding. You still are dodging my question posted above. A simple yes or no will do. I reread your post and will take your answer is no. In which case I have to ask why the president keeps calling it (iraq) a war on terror. To me that in it self is a LIE!!!!!

 

[movie zombie]

the war on terror is/was in afganistan. and look what we''ve got there: warlords ruling the country side, women afraid for their safety unless in dressed in a burka, etc. and its escalating there also against US troops.

when our troops begin to be called the enemy [as they are by most iraqi''s] its time to get out or face another vietnam.

peace, movie zombie

 

[perry]

Colormyworld states:

Perry I am not a lawyer so as far as legal issues go I am rather naive. What I do know is that the United States holds it self up as an example to the world. What kind of standard are we setting?

The US sets a mixed standard to the world. We often speak of high standards and ideal; and then shoot ourselves in the foot - often becuase of the presidents trying to project their party politics on the world (and both parties are equally bad at it).

On the other hand, another look at the question of what kind of example are we setting can be seen by the people who flock to our shores for a chance to live and build a family here compared to the number who leave. Fact is, as bad as we bumble at times (or often) - the US is far above most places in the world (i.e: they are worse). I will also note, that I have personally offered to buy 1 way plan tickets and pay the 1 way moving expenses for some people who are severely critical of the US and very positive about life and conditions elsewere. They get this look of horor on their face when they understand that I am serious and ready to spend my money - and they cannot even think of actually moving elsewhere.


As far as your second point. We were not lead into this war with Iraq for nation bulilding.

You are correct, the US is not an expansionist nation builder (like all other countries in the world - that has been studied: what kind of example is that). However, the US sometimes acts as the worlds policeman. Some conduct is so bad that people have to be taken off the streats to protect the other people in the neighborhood. Some nations need to have their leadership and structure removed to protect the neighborhood. Many decades ago it was hopped that the UN would provide some of the policing function in the world. It did not work out.


You still are dodging my question posted above. A simple yes or no will do. I reread your post and will take your answer is no. In which case I have to ask why the president keeps calling it (iraq) a war on terror. To me that in it self is a LIE!!!!!
Actually, I did not dodge your question. If you read my answer above I invalidated one of your presupositions in the question. The concept that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terriorism from the standpoint of the type of terriorism that directly threatend the US and other nations (the terrorist attacks on civilian populations). As such, I consider your question invalid and I cannot answer an invalid question. To make this concept simple; the standard question of: "have you stopped beating your mother yet?" "Give me a yes or no answer" is also similarily invalid for most people. Their are actually 4 possible answers to a question framed as a yes or no question- and not the two that most people think: Yes. No. Invalid Question. It doesn''t Matter.


To me their is a cost for the war in Iraq. Their is a separate cost for the war on Terror (and not all of that gets spent overseas - you would not believe how much $$,$$$,$$$ we have spent at work to be ready for an increased terriorest attack). The industry I work in has has spent an extra one to two hundred million dollars within the US without a single taxpayer nickle being provided (just another goverment mandate, another cost of doing business). In the end most of you pay for that through increased prices.

To me, they are not one and the same. Thus, I can''t compare the effectiveness of money spent on one to what happens in the other.

As far as what people say is the reason and if that is a lie. Please be sure that they are defining terriorism the same way that I am, or that you are. Perhaps it is more of a misunderstanding. Things I have learned in life. Now should you clarify their exact meaning - and should it match your meaning. Then you will be able to state if they lie or not.

Perry

 

[colormyworld]

Perry Ah yes the love it or leave it syndrom. Just let me state for the record. I love the country I was born in. I do not like where it is going at this point in time though. I feel it has been hijacked like those planes on 9/11. Facts are facts. We were sold a bill of goods on why we went into Iraq and now we are being sold a different idea as to why we are there. You can''t have it both ways. That is what those talking heads do at that "fair and balanced" cable "news" network do. . My point being, we are in a fight with an eneny that will stop at nothing to bring the U.S. down. For us to be distracted in Iraq is IMHO a serious error. It is not putting the welfare of our country first.

 

[movie zombie]

imo, iraq has increased terrorist threat rather than reduced it.

peace, movie zombie

 

[rubydick]

Perry,

The world does not perfectly balance on a perfectly perfect fulcrum. Nor does America. I think there is a difference between a Stalin (leftist) and a Gandhi (leftist). Just as there is a difference between a Lincoln (Republican) and an LBJ (Democrat), between an Eisenhower (Republican) and a Nixon (Republican). To suggest otherwise, to argue that they''re all the same, that Republicans and Democrats in the various branches of government are equally guilty, is to make a mockery of the most basic of human emotions and experiences. In the extreme, it suggests that a mass murderer is no more guilty than a child who dies at birth.

Excuse me if I don''t see the world in quite the same black-and-white way, but I don''t. I try to make value judgments based on information.

"Perry, in my mind, you are a detriment to this nation. I will pay your one-way expenses to leave. Contact me when you are ready."

Perhaps that''s what I should say. But I won''t. There''s that nasty discretion, rearing its fool head. Damn! Why can''t we all be the same?

 

[valeria101]

Ugh... haven''t read this until now ...


I can hardly imagine what exactly prompted the use of apparently inappropriate, outrageous and obsolete weapons, but panic: either the users'' or the intent to induce it in the local population beyond the immediate effects of the thing. It works both ways rather well. If those soldiers had anything in common with the folk applying innovative psychological torture throughout Iraqi war prisons, it could have even been a grassroots initiative.

I am pretty sure your government (US) knows well what ''terror'' is good for. Even if they weren''t talking about it so much - the knowledge seems to come instinctively with power.

Is there any need for further legal arguments? Maybe ex-post. Anything can be explained, justified or blamed. Talk is cheap.


My 0.2

 

[perry]

I am in agreement with Valeria101:

If you look at my initial post on this thread you will see that I pointed out how easy it is for troops to use old stockpiles of weapons.

Concerning the rest of the post: That gets into the questions of what is legal versus what is moral. I have traveled through several parts of the world. In discussing international actions their are several points:

First - you always need to understand what is legal, and what is not, and why it is or
is not legal.

Second - you need to understand (as best you can) the local morality. I assure you
that their can be a large difference in what is considered moral arround the world.
I will further propose that the US tends to be one of the more moral nations in the
world, because we tend to follow laws (we are not perfect, but in general a lot
better than many other countries on this), and tend to have open discusions on
such issues.

I don''t see the world as black and white: I do see a huge difference between what is leagal and what is moral (that is where I believe the appearance of black and white comes from). However, I also see that it is considered moral by the people to slaughter people of a different faith or culture in certain parts of the world (Africa has the most recent examples). I see that it is consideren moral by the people in other parts of the world to completely ignore various international laws and rulling to make a profit and grow the local economy (China being a prime example of this with its rampart copyright infringments and outright support of piracy - yes ships and cargoi still get stolen by pirates- and they usually end up in China where the ship gets renamed and reflagged).

In my post above I was pointing out the legal aspects of the situation. When dealing with "moral" issues - you should also know what the legal case is: You have a strong case if you can make a case that it is clearly not legal, and not considered moral in most of the world. In this case the use of the weapons was legal, and I am not convinced that most of the world consideres them to not be moral (I will admit that much of Europe and North America does).

I also stated one case my personal veiw (that the war in Iraq was not directly linked to the "Al Quida" type terriorest threat to the US). You are free to disagree with that view. However, I direct you to the other thread I am posting on that subject "The man who sold the war."

You may think what you will about me; I will only point out that I have found that I have a much greater infleunce on local politics (and some on State politics) by being willing to separate the discussion of what is legal versus what is moral as the starting point. People who come in and just scream their point of veiw because it is their "right way" of handling the situation have a lot less affect. A lot more common ground is achieved by starting from the point of what is legal - the other party then is willing to discuss with you the situation becasue you have not condemed them (as so many do).

From a personal morality issue: I sure wish the US would have destoyed those weapons so that they never could have been used, just as I wish they would destroy several other series of weapons out there (or in the case of the Nukes the vast majority of them: I think this country would be just as protected with 50 - 100 active warheads, as with the thousands we have). I just don''t see the need to have them arround.

On the other hand, I understand battle situations somewhat; and am not going to condem the people who chose to use a legal and readily available weapon in war.

However, as with many other issues: I must recognize that my personal morality is just that: personal. By engaging in conversations with others my goal is to try and influece in certain cases the laws and regulations in the direction of my personal morality. My personal morality also forces me to do more research than what some other people do in investigation the facts, and I rarely jump to fast conclusions. I hope all of you are doing the same. That is why the US is so great.

Please see my follow-up post on the subject of the Iraq war in the post "The man who sold the war."

Perry